News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

[sedati]

Or the plan is to have it go to the courts and then they’ll suddenly remind everyone how expensive that is for the State and again pinning Disney as the bad guy in this scenario.

 

[mkt]

Oh yeah…that part…yeah

So much for fiscal responsibility.

 

[mikejs78]

From the FL Constitution:

SECTION 4. Transfer of powers.—By law or by resolution of the governing bodies of each of the governments affected, any function or power of a county, municipality or special district may be transferred to or contracted to be performed by another county, municipality or special district, after approval by vote of the electors of the transferor and approval by vote of the electors of the transferee, or as otherwise provided by law.

What if Disney's power move here is, once the legislation is passed, before the new law goes into effect, holds a vote to transfer all powers from Reedy Creek to Lake Buena Vista and Bay Lake?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

From the FL Constitution:



What if Disney's power move here is, once the legislation is passed, before the new law goes into effect, holds a vote to transfer all powers from Reedy Creek to Lake Buena Vista and Bay Lake?

It’s possible…

And you know who will support that?

Osceola and Orange Counties.

They don’t want none of that

 

[BalooChicago]

I’m surprised they didn’t threaten to eliminate Florida resident benefits.

 

[mkt]

What if Disney's power move here is, once the legislation is passed, before the new law goes into effect, holds a vote to transfer all powers from Reedy Creek to Lake Buena Vista and Bay Lake?

Disney's power move are the two municipalities that they control. Unfortunately, then Florida's power move is that they can call a special legislative session to dissolve the municipalities and transfer them to the counties.

 

[mikejs78]

Disney's power move are the two municipalities that they control. Unfortunately, then Florida's power move is that they can call a special legislative session to dissolve the municipalities and transfer them to the counties.

If they transfer them to the counties though, then they end up with the whole debt situation all over again. Which is what the governor really wants to avoid. Because then the debt will be paid for by the citizens of the counties, not Disney.

 

[flynnibus]

I don't see how Disney could roll things to the cities on their own.

The areas they have agreed to play or not are just operating policy - they are not the legal definitions. They don't change the charter/etc. They on their own can't just arbitrarly redefine their own authorities. Plus, you have the same issues with debt servicing and the same revenue bond issues.

The taxing isn't the same and then you'd be dealing with all kinds of inter-municipality agreements to try to shift money around, etc. I don't see how any of this helps Disney... it doesn't actually change RCID.. it doesn't change the room, it just tries to move where people are standing.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Disney's power move are the two municipalities that they control. Unfortunately, then Florida's power move is that they can call a special legislative session to dissolve the municipalities and transfer them to the counties.

I mean…it would be a brilliant move.

It circumvents Tallahassee…while at the same time resetting the scenario where any counter move would expose that it’s not about the special district/taxes at all…but rather to get at the company. Public “policy” that targets one specific private business.

That wouldn’t play too well in the circuits.

 

[Minthorne]

Will this saga eventually end up as an animated feature, live action film, or straight to D+ docutainment?

I heard regardless it would be called Giant

 

[MrPromey]

I’m surprised they didn’t threaten to eliminate Florida resident benefits.

What are those, again?

Oh, you mean seasonal discount pricing to entice locals to come during times of year when travel is light?

... Or I guess it could be the discount pricing on annual passes that can't be purchased, anyway.

Whether you're a local, staying on site, or have Disney in your last name, they already don't seem to care much about you already these days so it would be kind of a hollow gesture of spite but why not?

 

[MrPromey]

Disney's power move are the two municipalities that they control. Unfortunately, then Florida's power move is that they can call a special legislative session to dissolve the municipalities and transfer them to the counties.

And then the power move for local government would be to start charging $25 bucks a car to park in those nice garages in Disney Springs.

Hey, they gotta' pay that debt off somehow, right?

 

[mkt]

And then the power move for local would be to start charging $25 bucks a car to park in those nice garages in Disney Springs.

Hey, they gotta' pay that debt off somehow, right?

The ultra power move would be to charge $100 parking for any car with a Yellow STATE Florida License plate.

 

[Kamikaze]

How long could this be reasonably blocked, if it did go to the courts? Would it still “go into effect” or effectively be blocked for months?

EDIT: Of course, this is only if Disney takes action. After this “plan” is released. I hadn’t even noticed the timing with the earnings call.

Years. Many of them.

 

[ParentsOf4]

How long could this be reasonably blocked, if it did go to the courts? Would it still “go into effect” or effectively be blocked for months?

Law is complex and Disney is fighting an uphill battle with the Florida Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the Supreme Court all leaning conservative. I'm not sure an individual judge will be able to block this for long without support from higher courts.

For example, according to Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, a plaintiff has to show an "actual or imminent" injury, not one that is "speculative or conjectural." To date, we've only speculated what harm Disney might suffer. I'm not sure that simply changing how a special district's board of supervisors are appointed qualifies as an injury. Even if a judge issues an injunction, an appeals court could reverse this on something along the lines of Lujan.

I'm not suggesting that Disney's case (or any case brought forward by the district's residents) rests on Lujan. Instead, I'm suggesting that court rulings often depend on a judge's individual biases, and this influences which aspects of the law they focus on to reach the ruling they want.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Law is complex and Disney is fighting an uphill battle with the Florida Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the Supreme Court all leaning conservative. I'm not sure an individual judge will be able to block this for long without support from higher courts.

For example, according to Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, a plaintiff has to show an "actual or imminent" injury, not one that is "speculative or conjectural." To date, we've only speculated what harm Disney might suffer. I'm not sure that simply changing how a special district's board of supervisors are appointed qualifies as an injury. Even if a judge issues an injunction, an appeals court could reverse this on something along the lines of Lujan.

I'm not suggesting that Disney's case (or any case brought forward by the district's residents) rests on Lujan. Instead, I'm suggesting that court rulings often depend on a judge's individual biases, and this influences which aspects of the law they focus on to reach the ruling they want.

Disagree on the Supreme Court.

This reeks of “interfering with private business”

You know that’s not gonna sell well. The government is supposed to ensure that billion dollar companies are protected from losing a dime…as long as they’re never given rules/told what to do…

It’s like “Article 17” or something

 

[lazyboy97o]

Law is complex and Disney is fighting an uphill battle with the Florida Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the Supreme Court all leaning conservative. I'm not sure an individual judge will be able to block this for long without support from higher courts.

For example, according to Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, a plaintiff has to show an "actual or imminent" injury, not one that is "speculative or conjectural." To date, we've only speculated what harm Disney might suffer. I'm not sure that simply changing how a special district's board of supervisors are appointed qualifies as an injury. Even if a judge issues an injunction, an appeals court could reverse this on something along the lines of Lujan.

I'm not suggesting that Disney's case (or any case brought forward by the district's residents) rests on Lujan. Instead, I'm suggesting that court rulings often depend on a judge's individual biases, and this influences which aspects of the law they focus on to reach the ruling they want.

Disenfranchisement is usually considered an injury.

 

[mikejs78]

Law is complex and Disney is fighting an uphill battle with the Florida Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the Supreme Court all leaning conservative. I'm not sure an individual judge will be able to block this for long without support from higher courts.

For example, according to Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, a plaintiff has to show an "actual or imminent" injury, not one that is "speculative or conjectural." To date, we've only speculated what harm Disney might suffer. I'm not sure that simply changing how a special district's board of supervisors are appointed qualifies as an injury. Even if a judge issues an injunction, an appeals court could reverse this on something along the lines of Lujan.

I'm not suggesting that Disney's case (or any case brought forward by the district's residents) rests on Lujan. Instead, I'm suggesting that court rulings often depend on a judge's individual biases, and this influences which aspects of the law they focus on to reach the ruling they want.

There are exceptions, but most judges, both liberal and conservative, tend to be above politics. Sure, they have their biases and views that color their decisions, but it is less about who scores political points vs the underlying ideology. Case in point - numerous conservative judges have already ruled against various laws proposed and signed by DeSantis. Very few judges, including the supreme court, have any cover for the former President's lawsuits regarding the 2020 election.

I think pointing out the conservative judiciary overstates things by quite a bit. Even under Lujan, harm can be claimed by the fact that a board with the power to levy taxes without any kind of representation will have been created.

It actually doesn't have to even be TWDC doing the suing. One of the other (Disney affiliated) landowners can.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

You have more faith than I do that justices like Thomas and Altito will rule in Disney’s favor.

My gut tells me they fully support the Parental Rights in Education Act and this will strongly influence their rulings. They are not going to give Disney a win and will figure out a way to get there. The question then becomes, how many other justices will join them, if it gets that far.

This is the battle that Disney faces in the conservative Florida Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit. Like it or not, a judge’s personal views often bleed over into their decisions.

This is why we have liberal and conservative justices. They both are looking at the same law but often reach polar opposite decisions.

I think they would be hesitant to go against an iconic private business…because the halls of power won’t like it at all.

And (prepare edit…try to keep it “non-local)…but if you look at the landscape/numbers…a certain state official will be off the front page in 3 years. And they all know it…which is why complete distractions like this are being pushed so hard now…it’s a desperation move.

This also could take years…Clarence Thomas might need ponce de Leon to be around that long

 

[mikejs78]

You have more faith than I do that justices like Thomas and Altito will rule in Disney’s favor.

Ok. Let's talk supreme court. I highly suspect you're right about Thomas and Alito. That's two against Disney. I also think that Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson are a shoe-in to side with Disney. I also think Roberts is in that camp, as he has become a more moderating force over the years. So that's 4-2 for Disney. That means they would need one of the remaining three justices to side with them, and I think the odds are in their favor.

Gorsuch is the most conservative of the remaining three, and generally the most likely to side with Alito and Thomas. But - he wrote the opinion that applied the civil rights act to LGBTQ individuals. He is as pure a textualist as they come.

Kavanaugh - another right-center jurist is known for his pro-business approach and for having a very expansive view of the first amendment.

Barrett - wildcard; very pro-business record. Record on speech is unclear.

If I had to handicap a Supreme court case, I'd say 6-3 in favor of Disney.